Actually it was four people recounting an event based on their own recollection of the account. Also taking into events based on their life to decide which things to talk about.

Actually, you don't seem to know what you are talking about, so your use of "actually" actually makes you sound like a bit of a twit._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

Look. The cool trait Jesus has is exactly that he is, in nature, complex. He may be a part of God's trinity, but he, in turn, has a trinity of his own. Look no further than the Magi's gift for a basic understanding of what are the distinct traits of Jesus:

"Gold, as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and incense, as to a God"

The "traits" of being a king and being mortal are not distinct. You're talking about a dichotomy at most, not a trinity.

But that's basically irrelevant to the point, because complexity of character is a completely different thing than complexity of nature. Chimeras and demigods as characters are just as flat, and normally flatter, than normal humans.

Leohan wrote:

Fundamentally, Jesus is a king, a God and a man. All through the New Testament, we see the struggle between those three aspects.

Jesus isn't all through the New Testament. He is in the Gospels (and slightly in the Revelation), which are four different accounts, written by four different people, with four different purposes and four different writing styles. Of course jumbling them all together makes Jesus look complex - imagine mixing together four interpretations of Batman or Dracula - inconsistency across authors does not equal complex.

Leohan wrote:

It also reflects on the three selves that each of us have: Jesus is a form of God, is perceived by his followers as the King of Jews and sees himself as a man.

"each of us have"? We each have a king self and a God self?_________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

You need to understand the difference between the ideas and the biology. A king, especially in the times of Jesus, is a king and then he is a mortal. Hell, some kings loved to be immortal in the eyes of their people. It gave them some level of additional power.

A mortal, as seen is the Bible, is you or me. The common people. Kings are at least 3 steps above in the ladder topped by God.

The New Testament is the story of Jesus and his disciples, I will concede, though, that the Epistles are not strictly about him. Revelations is apocrypha. This is irrelevant, though, because that was not the point of the sentence.

Each person in the World is defined by three features: How we perceive ourselves, what others see in us and what we truly are. These three are the definitive aspects of our selves. in Jesus' case it is mortal, king and god respectively. Being able to differentiate these so clearly is proof of masterful character representation.

And finally: Well can you tell me what is it that makes Jesus a flat character?

Well, actually, one more thing, just to make it clear. I'm not discussing theology here. I'm not Christian, but I'll always defend the Bible as a damn fine piece of literature._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

Joined: 30 Jan 2013Posts: 1107Location: Chamber of the House of Lords, Palace of Westminister

Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 4:08 am Post subject:

I don't think this makes Jesus a flat character, but I have always found him incredibly difficult to relate to.

A singular mindset of purity is not something easily seen as human. We are shown signs of feeling, as Jesus clearly and passionately weeps at times, and we are shown near the end of his life that Jesus has his doubts, but largely we never gain an understanding of why Jesus says and does the things he says and does for any reasons that allow us to connect to him.

He says things because they are right, not because his experience has led him to believe that they are right.

He does things that are right because they are right, not because he feels that they are right.

What I feel creates the greatest disconnect between Jesus and the rest of us is the human condition. We experience all of our own imperfections, we suffer the shame and guilt from our mistakes, we learn from and value our experiences.

I don't think Jesus, as portrayed in any of the gospels, really captured that quite as much. He was a noble in rags, walking among the peasants, not a peasant himself.

Of course, that's if we make as few assumptions as possible about his life. It could be that the only reason I think Jesus did not seem human was because there were things that I missed in the gospels, or that were simply not written.

That said, he was still a very good character. Very intricate, and very powerful, if Christianity's success is a testament (pun noted) to the strength of the writing._________________Good day, good people!

You need to understand the difference between the ideas and the biology.

There is no biology involved. I was talking about the ideas. Also, you need to understand that "you need to understand" is a really condescending way to phrase anything, and you should never use it again.

Leohan wrote:

A king, especially in the times of Jesus, is a king and then he is a mortal. Hell, some kings loved to be immortal in the eyes of their people. It gave them some level of additional power.

A mortal, as seen is the Bible, is you or me. The common people. Kings are at least 3 steps above in the ladder topped by God.

In the sense you are now defining mortal, Jesus was not a mortal in the Gospels. In Mark he is introduced as the Messiah and Son of God, in Matthew he is the historically profound culmination of prophecy, direct descendent of Abraham through David the King. In John he is directly God / God's Word, through which all things were created. He is never "you or me".

Leohan wrote:

Each person in the World is defined by three features: How we perceive ourselves, what others see in us and what we truly are. These three are the definitive aspects of our selves. in Jesus' case it is mortal, king and god respectively. Being able to differentiate these so clearly is proof of masterful character representation

Mashing the Gospels together, as you do: Jesus perceived himself as man, king and God. Others saw in him man, king and God. He "truly is" man, king and God simultaneously. Your parallel to "each person's features" is bogus.

Most importantly, though, again, is that you are talking about four separate works. You haven't addressed this, and I don't know why, as it's been my main point the whole time. You cannot mash up four people's interpretations of a character into one and therefore declare him complex.

Leohan wrote:

And finally: Well can you tell me what is it that makes Jesus a flat character?

I didn't call him a flat character. I disagreed with you that he was "tremendously" complex, because he ain't.

But since you want an answer, I will say he is a flat character in Mark, because he heals and teaches, heals and teaches, heals and teaches, and that's pretty much all he does until he dies. It's a very action-oriented story with lots of "immediately"s and very little introspection, and none of the characters except Peter develop at all, because they don't need to. It's a simple account of events, not a novel._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

The New Testament is the story of Jesus and his disciples, I will concede, though, that the Epistles are not strictly about him. Revelations is apocrypha. This is irrelevant, though, because that was not the point of the sentence.

It is not one story about Jesus and his disciples. It is four stories about Jesus and his disciples, one story about just his disciples, a bunch of letters written by disciples and followers and one weird account of a dream. It should not be read as one story. It should not be analyzed as one story._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

We have our moments. Speaking out about something wrong when it's unpopular to do so, spending the time to help someone instead of focusing on your own concerns - any and every time you've done the right thing instead of the comfortable thing, you've Jesused the situation. It's just that he was a lot more consistent than we tend to be.

Istancow wrote:

We are shown signs of feeling, as Jesus clearly and passionately weeps at times, and we are shown near the end of his life that Jesus has his doubts, but largely we never gain an understanding of why Jesus says and does the things he says and does for any reasons that allow us to connect to him.

He does it because he's a fanatic. He knows the scriptures inside and out, and that they were meant to encourage mercy and justice, but everywhere he goes he sees religious leaders profess to adhere to the scriptures, but actually behave abominably. He knows that people could and should be decent, should love and serve one another, but instead they are selfish, and cause great suffering thereby. He wants to fix it.

Almost all of his teaching is either spreading the message of loving and serving your neighbors or warning that it's a hard road to teach loving and serving your neighbors because people some people won't listen and will feel threatened and will persecute you for it. Then some people don't listen and feel threatened and persecute him.

Also there's the John side of the equation where He is God Himself, and the Means by which He chooses to make compatible His perfect Justice and His perfect Mercy by taking onto Himself the debt of the world's sins and paying it with His Sacrifice. But that doesn't have to invalidate the human character.

Istancow wrote:

I don't think Jesus, as portrayed in any of the gospels, really captured that quite as much. He was a noble in rags, walking among the peasants, not a peasant himself.

I agree with this. He was a noble in rags. But he taught that he was walking among other nobles in rags, if only they'd realize it. He calls on everyone to be noble. He knows it's hard, and it might not end that well for you, but he demands it anyway, and he's the only one with a partial right to make such a demand, because he's lived that life himself.

Istancow wrote:

That said, he was still a very good character. Very intricate, and very powerful, if Christianity's success is a testament (pun noted) to the strength of the writing.

I don't think the strength of the writing is a key factor, although I do think it is written well. It helps the message persist - everyone knows the golden rule, and most people agree that it's a nice idea, but they don't really adhere to it. It also helps the example persist - most people applaud Jesus' life and efforts, but they don't think his beliefs are quite for them. The message and the example aren't quite enough. The book doesn't transmit the Spirit of the thing.

Jesus wanted everyone to actually love one another, not just agree that it's a good concept. That's why he picked out a dozen guys to live out his example of service for other people. And when they went out, and loved people the way Jesus did, the spirit caught hold of a few of those people, and so they served still others and so on and so forth. I think it's the attachment of Jesus' story to real-life lovingkindness that explains the success of Christianity. It also didn't hurt that Rome adopted it._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

On the subject of strong female characters in literature, I have quite a few I love. Of course, I’m of the school that being strong doesn't have to mean strong-all-the-time. I’m particularly interested in complex female characters, written to be just as complex as their male counterparts.
Beyond the obvious Jane Eyre, I would like to nominate nearly every woman in Discworld. They’re strong in different ways (much like the sinfest women), but they’re nearly all strong in some way. Discworld is a fabulous read for equality of characters, and I particularly suggest the book “Monstrous Regiment” from it.